Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39421729›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2024

Re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), Maged Younes, Gabriele Aquilina, Laurence Castle, Gisela Degen, Karl-Heinz Engel, Paul Fowler, Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez, Peter Fürst, Rainer Gürtler and 44 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

54 authors.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF)
Maged Younes
Gabriele Aquilina
Laurence Castle
Gisela Degen
Karl-Heinz Engel
Paul Fowler
Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez
Peter Fürst
Rainer Gürtler
Trine Husøy
Melania Manco
Wim Mennes
Peter Moldeus
Sabina Passamonti
Romina Shah
Ine Waalkens-Berendsen
Matthew Wright
Cristina Andreoli
Maria Bastos
Diane Benford
Margherita Bignami
Claudia Bolognesi
Karlien Cheyns
Emanuela Corsini
Riccardo Crebelli
Birgit Dusemund
Rex Fitzgerald
Eric Gaffet
Katrin Loeschner
Francesca Marcon
Jan Mast
Manuela Mirat
Alicja Mortensen
Agnes Oomen
Josef Schlatter
Dominique Turck
Beate Ulbrich
Anna Undas
Christiane Vleminckx
Detlef Woelfle
Ruud Woutersen
Stefania Barmaz
Borana Dino
Gabriele Gagliardi
Sara Levorato
Elena Mazzoli
Alexis Nathanail
Ana Maria Rincon
Laura Ruggeri
Camilla Smeraldi
Alexandra Tard
Sam Vermeiren
Ursula Gundert-Remy

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present opinion is the follow-up of the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive relevant to the safety assessment for all age groups. In addition, the risk assessment of silicon dioxide (E 551) for its use in food for infants below 16 weeks of age is performed. Based on the newly available information on the characterisation of the SAS used as E 551 and following the principles of the 2021 EFSA Guidance on Particle-TR, the conventional safety assessment has been complemented with nano-specific considerations. Given the uncertainties resulting from the limitations of the database and in the absence of genotoxicity concern, the Panel considered that it is not appropriate to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) but applied the margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the MOE should be at least 36 for not raising a safety concern. The calculated MOEs considering the dietary exposure estimates for all population groups using the refined non-brand loyal scenario, estimated at the time of the 2018 re-evaluation, were all above 36. The Panel concluded that E 551 does not raise a safety concern in all population groups at the reported uses and use levels. The use of E 551 in food for infants below 16 weeks of age in FC 13.1.1 and FC 13.1.5.1 does not raise a safety concern at the current exposure levels. The Panel also concluded that the technical data provided support an amendment of the specifications for E 551 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The paucity of toxicological studies with proper dispersion protocol (with the exception of the genotoxicity studies) creates uncertainty in the present assessment of the potential toxicological effects related to the exposure to E 551 nanosize aggregates.

Indexed as

aggregatesE 551food additiveinfantsnanoparticlesnano risk assessmentsilicon dioxide

Identifiers

PMID39421729
PMCPMC11483555

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.